Phase II Randomized Trial of Sequential or Concurrent FOLFOXIRI-Bevacizumab Versus FOLFOX-Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (STEAM).

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) typically entails a biologic such as bevacizumab (BEV) with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI). STEAM (NCT01765582) assessed the efficacy of BEV plus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI (FOLFOXIRI), administered concurrently (cFOLFOXIRI-BEV) or sequentially (sFOLFOXIRI-BEV, FOLFOX-BEV alternating with FOLFIRI-BEV), versus FOLFOX-BEV for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC (n = 280) were randomized 1:1:1 to cFOLFOXIRI-BEV, sFOLFOXIRI-BEV, or FOLFOX-BEV and treated with 4-6-month induction followed by maintenance. Coprimary objectives were overall response rate (ORR; first-line cFOLFOXIRI-BEV vs. FOLFOX-BEV) and progression-free survival (PFS; pooled first-line cFOLFOXIRI-BEV and sFOLFOXIRI-BEV vs. FOLFOX-BEV). Secondary/exploratory objectives included overall survival (OS), liver resection rates, biomarker analyses, and safety. RESULTS: ORR was 72.0%, 72.8%, and 62.1% and median PFS was 11.9, 11.4, and 9.5 months with cFOLFOXIRI-BEV, sFOLFOXIRI-BEV, and FOLFOX-BEV, respectively. OS was similar between arms. ORR between cFOLFOXIRI-BEV and FOLFOX-BEV did not significantly differ (p = .132); thus, the primary ORR endpoint was not met. cFOLFOXIRI-BEV and sFOLFOXIRI-BEV numerically improved ORR and PFS, regardless of RAS status. Median PFS was higher with pooled concurrent and sequential FOLFOXIRI-BEV versus FOLFOX-BEV (11.7 vs. 9.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.7; 90% confidence interval, 0.5-0.9; p < .01). Liver resection rates were 17.2% (cFOLFOXIRI-BEV), 9.8% (sFOLFOXIRI-BEV), and 8.4% (FOLFOX-BEV). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed in 91.2% (cFOLFOXIRI-BEV), 86.7% (sFOLFOXIRI-BEV), and 85.6% (FOLFOX-BEV) of patients, with no increase in serious chemotherapy-associated TEAEs. CONCLUSION: cFOLFOXIRI-BEV and sFOLFOXIRI-BEV were well tolerated with numerically improved ORR, PFS, and liver resection rates versus FOLFOX-BEV, supporting triplet chemotherapy plus BEV as a first-line treatment option for mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The combination of first-line FOLFIRI with FOLFOX and bevacizumab (concurrent FOLFOXIRI-BEV) improves clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relative to FOLFIRI-BEV or FOLFOX-BEV, but it is thought to be associated with increased toxicity. Alternating treatment of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI (sequential FOLFOXIRI-BEV) could improve tolerability. In the phase II STEAM trial, which is the largest study of FOLFOXIRI-BEV in patients in the U.S., it was found that both concurrent and sequential FOLFOXIRI-BEV are active and well tolerated in patients with previously untreated mCRC, supporting the use of these regimens as potential first-line treatment options for this population.

Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of leading experts from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of medical oncologists, hematologists and hematologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists. The NCCN Guidelines are in continuous evolution and are updated annually or sometimes more often, if new high-quality clinical data become available in the interim.

Kidney cancer, version 3.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the recent updates/changes in these guidelines, and updates include axitinib as first-line treatment option for patients with clear cell renal carcinoma, new data to support pazopanib as subsequent therapy for patients with clear cell carcinoma after first-line treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and guidelines for follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2015.

Germ cell tumors (GCTs) account for 95% of testicular cancers. Testicular GCTs constitute the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the incidence of testicular GCTs has been increasing in the past 2 decades. Testicular GCTs are classified into 2 broad groups--pure seminoma and nonseminoma--which are treated differently. Pure seminomas, unlike nonseminomas, are more likely to be localized to the testis at presentation. Nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor associated with elevated serum concentrations of alphafetoprotein (AFP). The diagnosis of a seminoma is restricted to pure seminoma histology and a normal serum concentration of AFP. When both seminoma and elements of a nonseminoma are present, management follows that for a nonseminoma. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Testicular Cancer outline the diagnosis, workup, risk assessment, treatment, and follow-up schedules for patients with both pure seminoma and nonseminoma.

Kidney cancer, version 2.2014.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight treatment recommendations and updates specific to the management of patients with advanced non-clear cell carcinoma included in the 2014 version of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer.

Two phase 2 trials of the novel Akt inhibitor perifosine in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: The clinical activity of allosteric inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may be limited by upstream activation of phosphatidylinositol 3 (PI3)-kinase/Akt resulting from mTOR1 inhibition. On the basis of this rationale, 2 independent phase 2 trials (Perifosine 228 and 231) were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel Akt inhibitor perifosine in patients with advanced RCC who had failed on previous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. METHODS: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 24 patients with advanced RCC received oral perifosine (100 mg daily). Perifosine 231 enrolled 2 groups that received daily oral perifosine (100 mg daily): Group A comprised 32 patients who had received no prior mTOR inhibitor, and Group B comprised 18 patients who had received 1 prior mTOR inhibitor. RESULTS: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 1 patient achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-20%), and 11 patients (46%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14.2 weeks (95% confidence interval, 7.7-21.6 weeks). In the Perifosine 231 trial, 5 patients achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 10%; 95% confidence interval, 4.5%-22.2%) and 16 patients (32%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14 weeks (95% confidence interval, 12.9, 20.7 weeks). Overall, perifosine was well tolerated, and there were very few grade 3 and 4 events. The most common toxicities included nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Although perifosine demonstrated activity in patients with advanced RCC after failure on VEGF-targeted therapy, its activity was not superior to currently available second-line agents. Nonetheless, perifosine may be worthy of further study in RCC in combination with other currently available therapies.